On 1/25/2021 10:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 01:30:38PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:

[...]

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 666c25ab9564..1c84f1ba32b9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -1226,6 +1226,32 @@ static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear_full(struct 
mm_struct *mm,
  static inline void ptep_set_wrprotect(struct mm_struct *mm,
                                      unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
  {
+       /*
+        * Some processors can start a write, but end up seeing a read-only
+        * PTE by the time they get to the Dirty bit.  In this case, they
+        * will set the Dirty bit, leaving a read-only, Dirty PTE which
+        * looks like a shadow stack PTE.
+        *
+        * However, this behavior has been improved

Improved how?

Processors supporting Shadow Stack will not set a read-only PTE's dirty bit. I will revise the comments.

and will not occur on
+        * processors supporting Shadow Stack.  Without this guarantee, a

Which guarantee? That it won't happen on CPUs which support SHSTK?


Yes.

+        * transition to a non-present PTE and flush the TLB would be

s/flush the TLB/TLB flush/

+        * needed.
+        *
+        * When changing a writable PTE to read-only and if the PTE has
+        * _PAGE_DIRTY set, move that bit to _PAGE_COW so that the PTE is
+        * not a shadow stack PTE.
+        */

This sentence doesn't belong here as it refers to what pte_wrprotect()
does. You could expand the comment in pte_wrprotect() with this here as
it is better.

I will move this paragraph to pte_wrprotect().


+       if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK)) {
+               pte_t old_pte, new_pte;
+
+               do {
+                       old_pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
+                       new_pte = pte_wrprotect(old_pte);

Maybe I'm missing something but those two can happen outside of the
loop, no? Or is *ptep somehow changing concurrently while the loop is
doing the CMPXCHG and you need to recreate it each time?

IOW, you can generate upfront and do the empty loop...

*ptep can change concurrently.


+
+               } while (!try_cmpxchg(&ptep->pte, &old_pte.pte, new_pte.pte));
+
+               return;
+       }
        clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, (unsigned long *)&ptep->pte);
  }

[...]

Reply via email to